(1) there will be not just neoliberalism, but an extreme economic collapse under small government libertarian policies;

(2) a tidal wave of mass immigration gutting the real wages and the job prospects of Americans, but

(3) don’t worry, because – under Gary – you’ll be able to get stoned all day long on legalised weed, and so forget that more and more of your country’s economy will get flushed down the toilet, and what’s left of its jobs will be exported to the Third World.

Thank god, SJW libertarian Gary hasn’t got a hope in hell of winning.

A more interesting question is whether people on the left would be capable of seeing how destructive the mass immigration policies favoured by Gary Johnson would be as combined with his economic program.

Next, we can ask these left-wing people: wait a minute, current mass immigration policy combined with neoliberalism is also extremely harmful. Are you prepared to admit that too?

60 comments:

"He [Trump] would call immigrants from Mexico murderers and rapists..."

He did call them that. The statement is 100% factually correct.

You also ignored a couple of other points in both of the videos:

*That Trump also disparaged an American-born Hispanic Judge based on his ethnicity, in terms of how fair that judge would be re the very odious Trump University scandal. Fyi that scandal should alone disqualify anyone for higher office.

*Johnson also said immigrants form Mexico are more law-abiding than natural-born citizens. That is also a factual statement.

"Few Americans now recall that, prior to IRCA, it had never been against federal law to hire a non-citizen lacking work authorization. Today, individuals who hire fewer than ten illegal workers during any 12-month period are unlikely to be prosecuted."

*Johnson is a former border state Governor. Think he might have had a little experience, here? I recall that another former border state Governor named George Bush was also sympathetic to Illegal Immigrants, much to his party's chagrin.

*Where do you plan to get the money to deport 12 million people, pray tell? It'd be cheaper to just offer a path to citizenship and only deport those caught committing a serious crime.

*Trump also thinks a Wall on the US/Mexico border is just dandy. And you think Johnson's policies are wacko?

Look, I'm not into Gary Johnson but he's totally correct on this one. The US does not have open borders, does not have an immigration problem, and doesn't need clowns like Trump in office pouring kerosene on the fire.

Oh and Gary Johnson could be in a position to win, if he and or Stein are allowed on that debate stage. The fact that they aren't is tied to things FAR more corrupt than whatever problem immigration might bring, believe me.

You say: “The US does not have open borders, does not have an immigration problem,”

It may not have completely open borders, but has a tremendous problem with illegal immigration from Mexico.

Furthermore:

“The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has estimated that 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States in January 2012. According to DHS estimates, ‘the number of illegal immigrants peaked around 12 million in 2007 and has gradually declined to closer to 11 million.’”

So you think that when 11 million illegal immigrants are in your country, this is a state of affairs in which the US “does not have an immigration problem”? What, really? I mean no problem of any kind?

“"He [Trump] would call immigrants from Mexico murderers and rapists..."

He did call them that. The statement is 100% factually correct.”

What Trump actually said:

“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/06/16/full-text-donald-trump-announces-a-presidential-bid/

OK?

(1) he clearly didn’t say “all Mexicans are rapists” or words to this effect

(2) he clearly didn’t say “all legal Mexican immigrants are rapists” or words to this effect

(3) he clearly didn’t say “all illegal Mexicans are rapists” or words to this effect, because he said explicitly “some, I assume, are good people.”--------------If you’re going to criticise him, why not just say: well, he suggested that maybe a lot of Mexican illegals are rapists, in disproportionate numbers, compared to US citizens. But does he have the crime statistics to back this up? If not, then obviously this is a false narrative.

But, no, instead, the whole issue has to be blown out of proportion, and some lie perpetuated that Trump said “all illegal Mexicans are rapists.”

(1) what about the rule of law on immigration? Is it really the case that your don't think laws should be enforced?

(2) millions of illegal immigrants allowed to work tend to lower or hold down real wages, and increase competition for scarce jobs.

(3) this illegal mass immigration that simply provides big business a club with which to smash trade unions and organised labour. This will polarise working class communities and tend to contribute to the already serious issue of wages not rising in line with productivity growth.

(4) state and federal governments cannot effectively and efficiently engage in short-run or long-run planning and funding of public services and infrastructure if they have floods of illegal immigrants coming in. Poor control over borders means you have no idea how many people will enter its country in any given year or in the long run.

(5) massive illegal immigrants will contribute to severe issues related to urban overpopulation, supply of housing and cost of rent.

(6) also, we have cultural problems. Too many people means it is difficult to assimilate people into your culture.---------Do we need to go on?

what about the rule of law on immigration? Is it really the case that your don't think laws should be enforced?

There's lots of laws that I think are in fact, unjust and shouldn't be enforced at all. the War on Drugs is one glaring example. On that one, Hillary is actually just as bad as Trump - maybe even worse since Bill's the one who helped increase disproportionate incarceration of nonviolent criminals, mostly Blacks. While not fair to put it all on Clinton, but he made matters worse:

So yes, if a law is ghastly expensive to enforce, unjust in character, not the best available solution and generally fucked up from the getgo, damn right they shouldn't be enforced. I don't buy into "Well change the laws then," because that unfortunately takes more time and effort than what could be corrected by ignoring it altogether. You'd be surprised how many laws on the books aren't enforced:

(2) millions of illegal immigrants allowed to work tend to lower or hold down real wages, and increase competition for scarce jobs.

(3) this illegal mass immigration that simply provides big business a club with which to smash trade unions and organised labour. This will polarise working class communities and tend to contribute to the already serious issue of wages not rising in line with productivity growth.

For #2, what's commonly said here is that "Illegals take the jobs American's don't want." I think that's largely true. If you get a doorbell ring to paint your house at 7am on Saturday morning, chances are it's probably immigrants.

#3 is a fair point, but Idk that the level of illegal immigration right now is causing that problem. We'll have to see how the localities that passed the $15 wage pan out on this.

I love this response to an article that talks about the Trump phenomenon in the comments:

"Odd. Not a single mention of Republicans blocking every Democrat job bill, every rural broadband initiative, every increase in education budget, every minimum wage bill. OK, I don't expect voters to keep up with this stuff. But reporters?"

So Idk... have we really exhausted all other options and are faced with expulsion of people based on Race, Religion, or National Origin?

That's not the America I was raised to believe in. [It may not exist, anyway.]

(4) state and federal governments cannot effectively and efficiently engage in short-run or long-run planning and funding of public services and infrastructure if they have floods of illegal immigrants coming in. Poor control over borders means you have no idea how many people will enter its country in any given year or in the long run.

AFAIK, public services are buttressed quite nicely by Illegal dollars, since they pay taxes too. In fact, sometimes they don't even bother to take advantage of Social Security or Medicare even though they paid into it. How can they? They're here illegally!

As far as the rest of this point, the numbers haven't seemed to change much in the last 10 years or so since immigration really came to the forefront as an issue under Bush. 12 million is 12 million. You really think we're that clueless about how many are here and can't plan for it?

How, when we know what the impact of them paying into SS is all about?

(5) massive illegal immigrants will contribute to severe issues related to urban overpopulation, supply of housing and cost of rent.

As far as the USA goes, I'd have to see stats on that before I'd believe it. I live in a Sanctuary City, remember? Portland has more food to feed the homeless and low income than a lot of places.

(6) also, we have cultural problems. Too many people means it is difficult to assimilate people into your culture.

Allow me to quote from the great Socio-Political philosopher Iggy Pop:

"England and France,

these cultures are old

The cheese is stinky and the beer ain't cold!"

;-)

IOW, the US has already BEEN a melting pot, already had massive inflows of immigrants forever, and already has been a culture of Diversity. It's not some new namby-pamby "SJW" thing. Ever watched the movie "Gangs of New York?" Irish immigrants jumping right off the boat and being inducted directly into Lincoln's war.

(1) doesn't answer my question, even if the drug war is wrong, which is probably is.

The US has immigration laws. Should those laws be enforced? Your answer -- by implication -- seems to be, no, they should not be enforced.

Anyone who comes illegally should stay. OK, then why not just say it?

(2) "For #2, what's commonly said here is that "Illegals take the jobs American's don't want."

No, this is pro-big business bullshit which you have fallen hook, line and sinker for.

Dean Baker:

"The conservative nanny state folklore on immigration is that immigrants take jobs that workers in the United States do not want, and they point to jobs like custodians, dishwashers, and fruit picking, all very low paying jobs. The problem with the folklore is that the reason that native born workers are unlikely to want these jobs is that they are low-paying, not because they are intrinsically such awful jobs. Native-born workers have been willing to take many unpleasant jobs when they were compensated with high wages. Meatpacking is an obvious example of an industry that did offer relatively high-paying jobs that were widely sought after by native-born workers, even though no one would be very happy to work in a slaughterhouse. This is less true today than in the past, because the meatpacking industry has taken advantage of the availability of immigrant workers to depress wages and working conditions in the industry. As a result, immigrant workers are now a very large share of the workforce in the meatpacking industry.

The same sort of situation holds in all of the jobs that native born workers supposedly do not want. Native-born workers will wash dishes, clean toilets, and pick tomatoes for $20 an hour. When the nanny state conservatives say that they can’t find native-born workers for these jobs, they mean that they can’t find native-born workers at the wages that they want to pay, just as most of us can't find native-born doctors or lawyers who are willing to work for $15 an hour.” (Baker 2006: 23–24).http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/03/mass-immigration-is-last-fraud-of.html---------What you are actually doing is demanding a policy that keeps wages down and keeps American workers poor.

More games from KW. If you want to argue johnson's statement is accurate because it's literally true(the old out of context ploy) then so is the claim Trump made, and Kevin must assent that Mexican immigrants are rapists. I can go around saying Kevin thinks so. This is exactly the sort of gotcha horseshit we hold condemn in fact. We all know what Johnson meant, and LK is right to call it a lie.

when the average wage increase more rapidly than the average increase in productivity stagflation will certaintly occur (i will mention the balance of payment constraint later).

and dont mistaken if there will be open borders and mass immigration it will certiantly occur since mass unskilled population will certiantly decrease the average rate of productivity in the country.

in order to prevent the problem of stagflation when mass immigration occur (assuming you are not evil neoliberal but a real keynesian MMTer)you will have to invest higher and higher percentage of your economic REAL resources in order to absorb this immigrants which in the end is self defeating strategy.

1.mass immigration will put serious burden on the people of the nation because it will have to invest ever increasing amount of its real resources on building new public infrastructure (schools hospitals etc included).

2.it will force the country to rapidly increase its capital formation and it will force the country to teach this new immigrants the required skills (which in a case of mass immigration they will most likely will not have) to get the jobs which this new capital require.

so basically with mass immigration purely economically you will have to invest ever increasing proportion of the real wealth of the economy into the public sector and public goods into capital formation and capital import and into trying to skill in a faster and faster rate the new coming people.

and when higher and higher percentage of what your economy produce is public goods and educational programs while your country focus on importing capital or giving more and more focus on creating its own capital.

its a secure path to worse quality of life of your population or/and its a secure path to stagflation like in latin america since when you invest more and more of your real economy on the things i mentioned your economy will start to import more and more other products from other countries (in attempt of the people to keeping their quality of life standarts) while you will start to export less and less (because your real economy will start to focus on other things) which will cause the famous balance of payment constraint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirlwall%27s_Law

so basically mass immigration will kill the welfare state mass immigration will kill the welfare of the average joe and jaine and mass immigration will kill any keynesian and JG programs.

No, this is pro-big business bullshit which you have fallen hook, line and sinker for.

I guess it all depends on where you sit. I hear the chains rattled of the immigration hobgoblins mostly by Conservative Republicans in my country. Of course, Obama deports more than they do, but that's another matter.

No, it's actually a fact. It was pointed out by a columnist in the Portland paper - Steve Duin I think it was. He related how he literally was woken up to a 7am Saturday doorbell rang by immigrant workers who were there to paint his house. Something you won't see white guys doing very often. And I believe one of the links I gave you documented that businesses that hire less than 12 undocumented workers are let off the hook. It's the factories that staff with illegal labor that the government is concerned with.

Is that not fair? Seems like letting the little guy get a break on labor costs would be a form of "Keynesian stimulus."

The left-wing case isn't to exclude people on the basis of skin colour or race or national origin. It's to have lower immigration and strong national borders on strong economic, social and cultural grounds -- perfectly good left-wing principles.

The left has irreversibly changed since the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. I don't know that you can expect it to turn the clock back to the time when it was mainly about White Blue Collar workers. Pretty much since Martin Luther King we've had our consciouses pricked by the reality that there are other people in the world besides us.

I just don't think you grasp the US history of immigration and assimilation and it seems to me you're approaching this with a European lens. We don't have *A* culture. We are a blend of several cultures all at once.

Forget going backwards, I'd rather go forward. That's why I've taken an interest in the concept of Communalism which has been adopted by the Green Party platform this year and supported by Jill Stein. It may be a bit Utopian and difficult to pull off I don't know, but I'm interested nonetheless. You aren't going to achieve any kind of Economic or Social Justice by leaving the same employer/employee landlord/tenant relationships in place. these need to be destroyed and different structures put in their place. That's why the Worker's Co-op movement is I believe, the future of the Left. It's all the rage in various parts of the world. NOBODY - not the Dems. Repubs, and certainly not the Libertarians are talking about this!

If we brought 100 million people with extreme religious fundamentalism

You asked me a variant of this before. Nobody's going to "bring" anyone here. But my answer is still the same. The only legit reason to deny entrance into the US is a Criminal Record. That goes for your Obama 300 Million thing, too.

You're breakdown of the problems with over-immigration is fine, but again I don't see that happening here in the USA. Not when illegals amount to less than 4 per cent of the total US Population. And not when - as I demonstrated for you - Social Security is in surplus due to Illegals paying taxes.

We do not have an Immigration problem here in the US. Full stop.

Cryin' out loud the Birthrate alone here is not at the same crises level you hear about in Japan or Sweden! Those people have something to worry about.

To amend what I said earlier about Small Businesses getting off the hook for hiring Illegals, that's far more feasible than a mass deportation program, which is cost prohibitive. If you want that practice to end, make them citizens.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-costs-of-mass-deportation-1458342018

Inb4 "That's a Right-Wing Free Market Think Tank!" The Center For American Progress came to similar conclusions:

My advance apologies if this is one of those observations so obvious that no one had to even bother pointing it out.

This discussion reminds me of a brilliant comment posted by Tiberius a few weeks back that I can't seem to find, about how the problems posed by open borders in racially diverse settler societies like the United States should be explained primarily in economic terms, so they don't drive away folk who would otherwise be open and benefitted by more protectionist policies. As one of the other Yankees who comment on this blog, I've often found myself in agreement with a lot of Kevin's reservations about how much of this applies to the United States (although he does a far better job articulating them than I could dream of, so I've learned to keep my mouth shut and let the wiser man make his case!). Since this isn't a blog where we dance around cultural differences and incompatibilities, it is worth considering that the gulf between the Kevin and LK is a result of the vast differences immigration has played in the development of the cultures of the UK and the US. While I don't want to speak for Kevin, I've often chalked my disagreements with LK on immigration policy up to the fact that the culture I've been brought up in has been thoroughly influenced by waves of immigrants. I'm similarly curious if LK would agree that the culture he was brought up in makes it more difficult to appreciate how much the dominant culture in the United States owes to our status as a nation of immigrants.

Finally, Kevin, since I've never done it in the past, thanks for being one of the most articulate commentators coming from an American perspective.

No, immigrants aren't more law abiding. The only way to get to that conclusion is to look at immigrant prisoners. But this is obviously nonsense since immigrants haven't been here as long. The best thing to do is to look at the race of prisoners, and what you find is that Hispanics are more criminal than whites. Also, PolitiFact is a joke.

Stopped reading your 1st link when it made the claim that you can't rely on official stats of prisoners because of "self-reporting." Since when does the prison system gather demographic info based on someone's word? With no apparent source to back that assertion, there's no point in continuing reading some Alt-Right scare blog.

it is worth considering that the gulf between the Kevin and LK is a result of the vast differences immigration has played in the development of the cultures of the UK and the US

Thanks for that. I've noticed now that several Europeans I encountered online seem to be more worried about Immigration than the average US citizen. I guess if the US was forced to accept any and all settlers for whatever reason, we'd be that way, too.

the problem with your statement its the difference between the past and today what is the main difference?

is that in the 18 19 20 centuaries there been serious intolerance of any foreign culture which been "unamerican" there been intolerance for foreign names clothes culture and etc.

this intolerance toward difference in american society forced immigrants to assimiliate quickly (because their culture customs names and sometimes religion been something to shame of)

thats why you got monolothic white group in the u.s.

but if immigrants to the u.s came to america with today pc culture their chances to assimiliate been closer to zero specially with the tendency in american society for different communities to segregate themself into their own ghettos (rich white suburbs included in this definition).

thats the biggest problem of modern immigration because modern pc culture of multiculturism basically discourage assimiliation because to assimiliate someone you have in some sense to make him to shame his own culture and heritage and to desire the culture and the heritage of the dominant group in order to become part of the society (something that go strongly against multiculturism).

now Kevin SHN when Kevin says he dont care if huge amount of people will come to his country i dont think its true.

for example if 300 million russians or arabs or latin american will come to america they will not only dominate the political process but their culture is way less prone from PC culture they simply dont care about PC/multiculturism culture and mostly (if their majorirty like in their countries of origin and not as a minority) they despise it and they are very intolerant toward cultures of others they can also be pretty racist compare to the standarts of americans.

and in this case there will be nothing to stop from this people of this ethnicities to intolerant the culture and the norms of behaviour of white and black americans.

which will force people like you and kevin to feel uncomfortable in their own home and essentially you will be put under serious pressure to assimilate against your will to the dominant culture (let it be russian culture arab culture or hispanic culture in the examples i gave you).

so when we are speaking about serious demographic changes like the one latin americans bring to u.s in which there is a chance that in the not so distant future they can become majority ethnic group in the u.s.

they will slowly change the u.s and since they are not prone as much as white americans to pc culture they will not give to white americans to preserve their own culture because of some higher values like multiculturism anti racism or politically correctness because unlike the whites they care about this values way less.

As usual Daniel, you are running your mouth about things you know nothing of:

this intolerance toward difference in american society forced immigrants to assimiliate quickly (because their culture customs names and sometimes religion been something to shame of)

LOL!!! And that's why we had Native American reservations, right? So they'd assimilate! That's why neighborhoods were always divided along ethnic lines. That's why people screamed to high heaven about Forced Busing in the 70's, which was seen as "achieving racial balance" in our schools:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing#Criticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_busing_desegregation

but if immigrants to the u.s came to america with today pc culture their chances to assimiliate been closer to zero specially with the tendency in american society for different communities to segregate themself into their own ghettos (rich white suburbs included in this definition)

That's existed FOREVER. At least since the beginning of the 1900's, anyway:

now Kevin SHN when Kevin says he dont care if huge amount of people will come to his country i dont think its true

Sure, I care. I'm just not such a Xenophobe that I think 4% of the total population is a "huge amount." AND as has been demonstrated in a link another poster gave, Immigration is on the decline. That's one of the biggest (and fairest) criticisms of Trump - that he's about 10 years behind the times.

for example if 300 million russians or arabs or latin american will come to america

LMAO!

Sure thing Daniel. 300 Million people equaling the same current population of the country are going to come here. Why, that happens every day!

and in this case there will be nothing to stop from this people of this ethnicities to intolerant the culture and the norms of behaviour of white and black americans

Except so far those that have chosen to come here don't seem to feel that way at all! Idk what would ever posses 300 Million people to move anywhere, but I figure it was because things got really nasty.

so when we are speaking about serious demographic changes like the one latin americans bring to u.s in which there is a chance that in the not so distant future they can become majority ethnic group in the u.s. they will slowly change the u.s and since they are not prone as much as white americans to pc culture they will not give to white americans to preserve their own culture because of some higher values like multiculturism anti racism or politically correctness because unlike the whites they care about this values way less

Right-Wing scare mongering. Full stop.

Have you ever had Hispanics as neighbors? Ever spent time in a Spanish Language Class in a US University? Had them as co-workers?

So you are in favour of something close to open borders. You actually would support the mass immigration of 00 million from Latin America if Obama implemented such a policy

Can I ask why you keep using these psychotic hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with reality, as if I'm supposed to take them seriously?

If 50 Billion Bizarros crash-landed on planet Earth [a better than 7-1 ratio] and started overrunning the whole world and disassembling all the national governments and made Bizarro #1 World Dictator and instituted open immigration so that inhabitants of Ork, Romulus, the Klingons, Oz, Narnia, Kobol, and Asgard would I be just a wee bit irritated? Why, yes I think I would!

Oh, god. Why these liberal PC lies about America covering up the past?

How do you explain this:

"The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790---------Shameful to exclude the Indians and people who were not white, but that was the reality.

One other point that should be raised Daniel & LK: You guys do realize that the US was founded with only a fraction of the population allowed to vote, right? It was mainly property owners. Feminists have made too much of it, but the fallout was that only White Males were the ones voting. There's no "American Culture" for us to go back to, because it started out as only for the 1%. We quickly outgrew that, as Immigration and Civil Rights took hold.

So people can come to America in the millions and never make any attempt to speak English ever

Well the USA has never once needed to adopt an official language in 240 years of history. If people don't they'll find it pretty hard to get a job, I suspect. Even Illegals got to be able to speak some English, and I used to work at a potato-processing plant where they gave Spanish-speaking employees down time to take English classes on site. Others already did it voluntary and got to speak pretty good on their own - while on the job, I might add. Worked so far.

That's existed FOREVER. At least since the beginning of the 1900's, anyway:

LOL

try this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Census of 1910. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.[1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity".

its the non assimilating pc/multicultrism society which dont cared about homogenity of its culture existed since at least the early 1900-s you are talking about?

now i am not supporting this law i am not saying its a good law i am just showing to you the amount of tolerance (non) in the american society for different culture and its just show the reason why americans assimiliated quickly back then.

but its have nothing to do with the fact that strong melting pot policies and encouragement of unity of culture and policies that focus on assimiliation instead of worshiping diversity as a divine thing which is i believe is byproduct of pc and multiculturism.

btw this law ended just in 1964 (its showing the amount of tolerance of americans to pc and multicutlirsm back then).

here are couple articles about how unusually hard compare to other immigrants is assimiliation process for mexicans.

Uk been ruled by aristocracy which is even less than 1 percent of the population germany been ruled by feudal kingdoms austria anf france by monarchs and yet i dont see you deny their culture just because most of their history this countries been ruled by small elite.

Kevin Wayne there was no policy of forced assimilation but what basically helped assimilate this people and helped to sustain the melting pot is the fact that american society had increasingly high intolerance (which been absoloutly legitimated by the society) of foreign cultures and thats what LK and i wanted to show you.

so the only way for people to achieve respectful statues at the society been to assimiliate into the dominant culture of the society.

now in modern world its should work of course differently the amount of tolerance for other cultures should be higher than in the past but there should be constructed policies based on assimiliation and melting pot which will accept the fact that immigrants should accept new identity and new culture and customs and nationality instead of their old,and this should be the dominant identity culture nationality and in this case is the american cultureinstead of policies which are preaching excessive PC and multiculturism at every corner.

well its worked well from a country which been ruled mostly by german and english wasps,because of assimilation and acceptance of the dominant culture you can see the increasing dominance of italians irish poles and jews.

there was no policy of forced assimilation but what basically helped assimilate this people and helped to sustain the melting pot is the fact that american society had increasingly high intolerance (which been absoloutly legitimated by the society) of foreign cultures and thats what LK and i wanted to show you.

You didn't show me anything. you showed me there was a hotbed of racism in America that those of better intentions needed to fight. And we did.

so the only way for people to achieve respectful statues at the society been to assimiliate into the dominant culture of the society.

They didn't. Every Jew who came to America was a Jew on his deathbed. Same with members of every other religion. Native Americans remained Native Americans, despite attempts to blend them into the wood work. Your "Assimilation Narrative" is a complete fairy tale.

and come on kevin jewish from poland culturally is different from american jew or your "beloved" israeli jews culturally so no kevin i dont spoke with you about religious assimiliation but about cultural and social assimiliation.

so pls kevin stop using red herring.

now about native americans the only native americans which really stayed native americans are the ones which lived in preservations.

the native americans which lived with the general population assimiliated pretty quickly and thats why you can find so many people like elisabeth warren with native american ancestry.

also there is way more people with native american ancestry which you simply dont know about because they look exactly like you.

so actually its supporting my point of view.

now about your second comment

my question is staying the same why are you recognizing english culture french culture russian culture but you cant recognize american culture?

and come on kevin jewish from poland culturally is different from american jew or your "beloved" israeli jews culturally so no kevin i dont spoke with you about religious assimiliation but about cultural and social assimiliation

Good grief. Would you guys get on the same page about what you're talking about? One minute Protestant Christianity is relevant. Another minute it's not.

the native americans which lived with the general population assimiliated pretty quickly and thats why you can find so many people like elisabeth warren with native american ancestry

Where i said that religon is a must in assimilation why do use this red herring kevin?

Elisabeth warren is not native american as well as other whites are not german or englishmen.

This show how well assimilation worked since people ancestry dont matter and whites are homogenous group thats the point kevin they are all assimilated.

In the same way spainards and portuguesse assimilated native americans and black slaves and created one mixture which you call them now hispanics this people have different ancestry but hey exactly like in the case of elisabeth warren they have identical culture and ancestry is not relevant at all thats the point of assimilation.

This is funny. Yes, Johnson appears to be subtly detaching US libertarianism from Southern nationalism and hitching it onto the college stoner demographic (where it belongs, actually). This is a hard won truth. We should be glad that Johnson is doing this and exposing what this movement really is.

The fact that Johnson appears to be polling higher with African Americans than any previous libertarian candidate also confirms their shift to the stoner demographic. I hope I don't come across like an SJW suggesting legalizing pot is the most likely explanation for why a black guy would find Gary Johnson and the fucking libertarians to be the most appealing of the bunch.

Yes. He's not a "movement" Libertatian. To his credit and his greater electoral appeal too. I wonder how much the prospect of more votes and with it subsidies played into his selection. That would be a nice irony.

Isn't Johnson's position the more principled one for libertarians? In a way I respect him for taking this position on immigration even though I don't agree with him.

Another way of interpreting Johnson's stance is that it is an acceptance that the United States is becoming less white and it will be important for any major right-wing party in the future to reach out to non-whites. I suspect this is one of the reasons why the establishment Republicans hate Trump. They see him as ruining their attempts to reach out to non-whites.

The days when politicians like Ronald Reagan could win elections with dog-whistles about “Welfare Queens” and “strapping young bucks” buying t-bone steaks on food stamps are probably over. I don’t think it is just a coincidence that the “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush was the last Republican to win a presidential election.

Left-wing people who genuinely care about the economic lives of regular people will have to make critiques of immigration based primarily on economics to try to avoid the racist label.

"don’t worry, because – under Gary – you’ll be able to get stoned all day long on legalised weed"

Some problems:

1. Why the hell is that a good thing? We shouldn't encourage addiction to drugs ("all day" the concern here as everything to do costs money...)

2. Poor people don't have the money to buy it so will commit crimes.

3. People cannot integrate back into society and get a job, raise a family, do anything if they are drug addicts!

The sensible policy is to make the NHS equivalent (in the US have to have univeral healthcare, but ignore that), the monopoly supplier of illegal drugs, so people get treatment and support there rather than an upturn in criminal activity.

It is a bit like when lefties try to raise the minimum wage rather than offer a government job to everyone at a wage and have lax illegal immigration controls.